Mutable Form and Realistic Form, ...makes the perfect invisible spellcaster? Options

[Steampunk]

Just a little something I noticed... A free spirit with Mutable and Realistic Form would make the perfect invisible spellcaster. He can appear as anything - a toaster for example - and people probably wouldn't even notice he's there without magical help. Are there any restrictions I missed?

[hyzmarca]

When a toaster starts casting spells at you, it's pretty obvious that something is off. It's great for infiltration, if you have a sufficient Disguise skill to pull off impersonating someone who should be there.

[Steampunk]

If it's a toaster, do you REALIZE that it starts casting spells or critter powers at you? What does it do? Throw out toasts to form a mystical sigil?

[hyzmarca]

If it's a toaster, do you REALIZE that it starts casting spells or critter powers at you? What does it do? Throw out toasts to form a mystical sigil?

The threshold for noticing a spell being cast is 6-Force. For spells of a decent Force, it isn't very difficult at all.

[Steampunk]

The gamemaster should apply additional modifiers as appropriate,

What wouzld apropriate modifiers be for "Doesn't move at all" (because it's a toaster) or "Doesn't say anything" (again: because it's a toaster)? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Imho, the rules assume a (meta-)human mage here and not something without arms or lips. It's not about noticing the magic, but the act of spellcasting...

[hyzmarca]

Metahuman magicians also don't move or say anything when casting spells, excepting those with geasa or Centering.

[Steampunk]

Metahuman magicians also don't move or say anything when casting spells, excepting those with geasa or Centering.

The rules talk explicitly about words or gestures:

An observer has to notice the magician’s intense look of concentration, whispered incantations, and small gestures.

And the rules say, that...

most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world

[Tarantula]

The rules talk explicitly about words or gestures:


And the rules say, that...

The rules also don't force a magician to move or speak to cast a spell. So its still applicable.

[psychophipps]

One rule that I have always enforced is that cast spells aren't invisible unless this fact is mentioned in the spells description. This comes from the picture on the front cover of SR1 with the mage chica and the native gunbunny which is the prime mental picture I get when I think about SR to this day.

Makes sense from that perspective, keeps the twinktastic actions down a lot, and forces the players to think a bit more before they just start tossing that old time magic around.

[Ol' Scratch]

Sort of destroys the full usefulness of a lot of spells for a lot of concepts, though. For example, Control Mind/Actions. It also brings up a bunch of WTF? moments with numerous combat spells such as how that Powerbolt shot through all those windows without destroying any of them.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Er...powerbolt is a direct combat spell, yeah? So, there's nothing to hit the window, except a "sense" that the spell came from that guy over there...spells aren't material unless they're indirect.

[Ol' Scratch]

See the post above mine.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

What about it? Just because some folks like to imagine all spells making huge glowy tracer-round paths directly to the mage doesn't make it canon. It's often just a more subtle way of saying "screw the mage."

I lump the (6-force) threshold to detect spellcasting into the same category as the test to tell when an astral form passes through you. Everybody in SR is at least somewhat sensitive to magic.

[Tarantula]

I lump the (6-force) threshold to detect spellcasting into the same category as the test to tell when an astral form passes through you. Everybody in SR is at least somewhat sensitive to magic.

Perfect explanation.

[psychophipps]

What about it? Just because some folks like to imagine all spells making huge glowy tracer-round paths directly to the mage doesn't make it canon. It's often just a more subtle way of saying "screw the mage."

I lump the (6-force) threshold to detect spellcasting into the same category as the test to tell when an astral form passes through you. Everybody in SR is at least somewhat sensitive to magic.

I'm not saying that there is a long holoneon tracer saying, "I R teh ROXOR mage dat castorz dat spell!" that stays up forever. I'm saying that as they cast there is some vocation and/or motions going on (again, these are based upon a lot of SR artwork), a brief flash is visible as the energy is released and as the effect goes off in a directly visible but strangely non-illuminating light. I do it because I got tired of the "I look at a guy and out of the blue my spell blows them out without any warning at all despite 50 people staring right at us". Needless to say, Initiates can take an ability that removes this restriction at the higher levels.

If you need to point everything else at someone at range to get something going, I fail to see why mages shouldn't pay the same price as the sammie pointing a gun at someone as they fire.

[Tarantula]

The mage looks at them. Thats the aiming. Sorry psychophipps, but your interpretation has no founding in the rules at all under SR4. Previously, I think some spells took gestures to cast (I'm thinking 1st-2nd ed here) but I'm not sure. I know in 3rd, if you took geas you could add restrictions of needing to move/speak. 4th is the same. I agree that its just a feeling of magic unless the spell explicitly says otherwise, (a good example is the armor spell, says specifically that the armor glows).

[Steampunk]

I lump the (6-force) threshold to detect spellcasting into the same category as the test to tell when an astral form passes through you. Everybody in SR is at least somewhat sensitive to magic.

I like that, thanks.

[Ol' Scratch]

What about it? Just because some folks like to imagine all spells making huge glowy tracer-round paths directly to the mage doesn't make it canon. It's often just a more subtle way of saying "screw the mage."

I wasn't saying it was canon. I made that pretty clear in my post. I was saying that if that was his house rule, it ruins the utility of quite a few spells and adds a bunch of "wtf?"ness to others.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Ah, completely misunderstood your post then, sorry.

[Falconer]

I point people to read p169, noticing magic.

It's fairly clear that the test is to notice that someone is using magic. It doesn't require somatic or verbal gestures unless you're using something like centering or have taken a geas restricting your magic use. But there's still signs of concentration on your face and such. (I disagree a little with it, but thems the rules as written).

That much said, I'd probably force a secret perception test at -2 for distracted, -whatever to notice the toaster on the counter in the first place. This is directly analogous to how a spellcaster being protected by a spirits concealment power would work. (you get enough negatives and glitches on the perception tests can get fun!). And in the case of an improved invis caster no check... except to notice a spell went off in your vicinity (you can't see him to see the signs, and he doesn't need to make noise to cast).

You don't notice him before he starts casting, so how do you see him cast the spell. The big thing then is sensing that a spell went off in your vicinity. (EG: I'd allow the perception check to notice that someone cast a high force spell in your vicinity, I wouldn't necessarily tell them it's control thoughts on the street sam).

A lot of it comes down to just GM common sense IMO. Can they see or percieve the caster... yes, then what are the visibility mods... okay... roll the dice. If they can't see him, well then make the check just to see if they get goosebumps as the spell goes off.

[Cabral]

The mage looks at them. Thats the aiming. Sorry psychophipps, but your interpretation has no founding in the rules at all under SR4. Previously, I think some spells took gestures to cast (I'm thinking 1st-2nd ed here) but I'm not sure. I know in 3rd, if you took geas you could add restrictions of needing to move/speak. 4th is the same. I agree that its just a feeling of magic unless the spell explicitly says otherwise, (a good example is the armor spell, says specifically that the armor glows).

IIRC, SR3 had a section on the mages defining the appearances of their spells. I think a giant neon corkscrew or drill was used as an example. So, his concept is not entirely without basis.

Falconer,
I'd say this is a special circumstance. What intense look? What gestures? What Incantations? There's nothing to notice. Your hackles might raise and know a spell is being cast. You look in the toasters direction and see ... a toaster on a countertop next to a blender and a microwave. You think ... invisible mage! Deploy FAB! The toaster Voorps into the metaplanes and you tell your story on Ghost Hunters ...

Edit: Omitted "corkscrew or drill" and removed extra text ... oops. SR4 isn't the only thing getting errata-ed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

I always interpretted those rules as being more akin to knowing a storm was coming. Smelling the ozone in the air, getting that heeby-jeeby feeling, and that sort of thing. Basically, a sixth sense of sorts. And if the test is successful, you just know. It's always worked as a good comprimise for me; it doesn't require the magician to be doing anything overtly obvious, but it doesn't leave the victims completely powerless regarding who or where an effect originated from.

[Riley37]

Of course the art shows magic as glowy. The artist with a pen, pencil, or colored pixels has no way to convey "the people around the mage are getting heeby-jeebies and a wierd intuition that the mage in particular, not anyone else, is violating the laws of nature". The artist has a lot more fun drawing great splotches of bright color.

Similar for possession. As I interpret the rules, a photograph of a possessed person looks just the same as a photo of a non-possessed person (unless the photo happens to show bullets bouncing off the Immunity to Normal Weapons). But if a vooduin is possessed by an F6 spirit, any living being with LOS gets a Threshold 0 test to know that a spirit's in the house. (I was gonna say "anyone", but "anyone" could include AIs, and they lack magic sense, right?)

I'm more interested in the story told with the spoken or written word, with the art as an accessory, than vice versa.

[The Jopp]

I'm with Cabral in this.

A perception to notice magic is perfectly allright and I would say that the MINIMUM treshold is always 1 as you never auto-succeed in this game, you might as well botch the roll...

Sure, you notice that magic is being cast but there is nothing in the rules that say:
A: You know WHO cast the spell
B: What the magic is

It says just that - You Notice Magic

Very much like i can make a perception test to notice a fire by smelling for smoke...

Yes, a spell was cast in the area but nothing tells you WHO or WHAT did it.

Sniping toasters will NOT be the first thing you look for when spell is cast at you.

[Blog]

I think most people (even mundanes in SR) feel the need to make it flashy. Since the magic manifests from this imagination it often carries sterotypes. Sure NONE of the spells need those words, motions, throwing of pixie dust. Some choose to do it as a geas, some choose to do it cause fun, some choose to do it for other reasons.

My mage would often do some of these actions for spells, for example when I used Lazer I would point my gun at the target. It actually got some "oh crap thats some new high tech weapon". Why? Cause it was fun. Did i need to? nope

My manabolts/stunbolts had no such things. All the surrounding spectators could see was that 'something magical happend to cause that guy to colapse' but they dont have any idea where it came from. This is often why the public FEARS mages.